Source files of,,,,, and Contribute:
You can not select more than 25 topics Topics must start with a letter or number, can include dashes ('-') and can be up to 35 characters long.

124 lines
5.9 KiB

  1. <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
  2. <html>
  3. <head>
  4. <title>FSFE's submission to the UK Open Standards Proposal 2014</title>
  5. <meta content="FSFE's submission to the UK Open Standards Proposal 2014" name="description" />
  6. <meta content="Open standards UK submission ICT Futures team Cabinet Office European interoperability framework Declaration on Standards Future of the Internet Document Freedom Day Definition Emerging Standards FSFE" name="keywords"/>
  7. </head>
  8. <body>
  9. <p id="category"><a href="">Our Work</a> /
  10. <a href="/activities/os/os.html">Overview of Open Standards</a>
  11. </p>
  12. <h1>Submission to UK Open Standards Proposal 2014</h1>
  13. <div id="introduction">
  14. <p>
  15. This is FSFE's submission to the <a href="">UK Open
  16. Standards Proposal</a>, held by the Standards Hub in Cabinet Office,
  17. submitted on 28th January 2014.
  18. </p>
  19. </div>
  20. <p>
  21. <a href="">Free Software Foundation Europe</a> has long
  22. advocated the use of Open Standards in government. We applaud this
  23. proposal by the UK government.
  24. </p>
  25. <p>
  26. Most governments are suffering the effects of lock-in in their IT
  27. infrastructure: high costs, dependence on a single ultimate supplier,
  28. no strategic freedom. This all but eliminates meaningful competition
  29. among suppliers, and stifles technological progress. In addition,
  30. these governments often end up imposing on the citizens they serve
  31. (and on other organisations they cooperate with) an obligation to
  32. acquire the same non-free programs that the government uses.
  33. </p>
  34. <p>
  35. In contrast, the UK government stands out not just for its
  36. determination to break free and make real competition among suppliers
  37. possible, but also for having an integrated strategy for doing so. The
  38. present proposal is a central building block of this strategy, along
  39. with a clear and strong <a href=""
  40. >definition of Open Standards</a>, the recently announced <a href=""
  41. >red lines</a> for IT contracts, and other elements.
  42. </p>
  43. <p>
  44. We applaud the UK Government's approach of focusing on standards
  45. rather than products, and relying on a strong definition of Open
  46. Standards to ensure that there will be significant competition among
  47. suppliers for any software products that the government may wish to
  48. use.
  49. </p>
  50. <p>
  51. An important feature of the present proposal is that it relies on a
  52. thorough and comprehensive <a href=""
  53. >study of the actual user needs</a>. This greatly increases the chances
  54. that the proposal can be successfully implemented, and that any new tools
  55. deployed will be well matched to the requirements of their users.
  56. </p>
  57. <p>
  58. The proposed standards (HTML (4.01, 5 or higher); TXT; CSV; ODF (1.1
  59. or higher)) each address a different technical need. The UK Government
  60. is correct in focusing on a single Open Standard for each category and
  61. purpose.
  62. </p>
  63. <p>
  64. Competition takes place on top of standards, not between them.
  65. Especially with regards to documents produced in office suites,
  66. concentrating on a single Open Standard will ensure that all suppliers
  67. can compete on an equal basis. In the mid to long term, the demand
  68. created by the UK government, and any others following in its
  69. footsteps, is bound to lead to significant improvements in the way
  70. office suites work - an area where progress has been all but absent
  71. for about a decade.
  72. </p>
  73. <p>
  74. We agree with Francis Maude's assessment, from a <a href=""
  75. >speech</a> delivered on January 29 this year, that "the adoption of open
  76. standards in government threatens the power of lock-in to proprietary
  77. vendors yet it will give departments the power to choose what is right
  78. for them and the citizens who use their services."
  79. </p>
  80. <p>
  81. In closing, we reiterate our support for the UK Government's proposed
  82. approach. Ultimately, any strategy is only as good as its
  83. implementation. We would thus like to express our hope that the
  84. government will follow through on implementing this approach across
  85. all of its branches. FSFE remains available to support this effort.
  86. </p>
  87. <h2>For further information about FSFE's work on Open Standards:</h2>
  88. <ul>
  89. <li><a href="">FSFE`s definition of Open Standards</a></li>
  90. <li><a href="">Overview of FSFE`s work on Open Standards</a></li>
  91. <li><a href="">Analysis on balance: Standardisation and Patents</a></li>
  92. <li><a href="">Defending Open Standards: FSFE refutes BSA's false claims to European Commission</a></li>
  93. <li><a href="">Open Standards, Free Software, and the Internet</a></li>
  94. </ul>
  95. </body>
  96. <timestamp>$Date: 2012-04-21 17:12:14 +0200 (Sat, 21 Apr 2012) $ $Author: samtuke $</timestamp>
  97. <tags>
  98. <tag>Policy</tag>
  99. <tag content="Open Standards">OpenStandards</tag>
  100. <tag content="United Kingdom">UnitedKingdom</tag>
  101. <tag content="Public Administration">PublicAdministration</tag>
  102. </tags>
  103. </html>
  104. <!--
  105. Local Variables: ***
  106. mode: xml ***
  107. End: ***
  108. -->